| Torillian said: That is fantastic evidence for the fact that there's a link between child abuse and prostitution, but then you make a big ol' leap with no evidence that it'll just be the same for porn actors. I am not willing to ignore the only study that we have because the second author is involved in the porn industry. Having written a number of scientific articles myself I know that the second author rarely has major input on the writing of the article or design of the scientific study and I would take a guess that this person is how they got access to the subjects given the survey and had little else to do with the study. I could be wrong but we're both just guessing at this point so we're kind of stuck. I don't understand what you mean by "broadly considered incredulous among experts" and then you send me to a blog post with some commenters talking about how they don't trust the study. Am I to understand that lindsay beyerstein, a Canadian journalist that I can't find any indication of having any training in sociology studies, is an expert? Most of the other commenters aren't even kind enough to provide their full names so they're as much experts as youtube commenters in my eyes. What are we qualifying as experts here? I have seen studies where experts disagree, and it's done in letters to the journal or subsequent studies, not comments on a blog. The 2012 study would indicate there's no difference between the control group and the porn actor group because when they were asked the same question they answered in statistically indistinguishable ways. You can't take the 36% and compare it to the overall number for the entire population when you only survey 177 people, that is why there's a control group included, to determine if there is a difference between those that are porn actors and those that aren't. |
I don't know, it seems like you're telling me what I can and cannot use the survey data as a comparison to. A survey of 177 porn performers is valid in as far it indicates women in pornography are less often molestation survivors than prostitutes, but invalid in as far as it indicates they're also more often molestation survivors than women overall are. 
It seems as though you're just arbitrarily cherry-picking where the data here is applicable and isn't in such a way as to fulfill a predetermined, self-serving narrative. I'm pointing to a clear connection between childhood abuse and sex commodification and it seems like you're just trying to find any way you possibly can of weaseling around it.
What I'm telling you is that the study of 177 porn performers in question highlights the MINIMUM rate of childhood sexual abuse among them, not the maximum plausible, and that even this minimal estimate is extraordinary. This is the point.
Last edited by Jaicee - on 26 August 2021
